Really, you think Harlequins are trashy? Do you mean hot, steamy sex when you say trashy, because if so Ellora's Cave books are a far more apt reference. However, if you mean trashy as in in a dopey romantic story (and given the representative quote this may indeed be the case) then carry on with the Harlequin reference. Or perhaps you mean trashy as in the heroine is so annoying you immediately want to throw the book in the trash? In that case, Harlequin definitely fits the bill.

@3 - Hmmm, good point. And yet you obviously have great regard for music, and write about it quite well. I wouldn't expect Nick Hornby, for instance, to be able to hit a note on Guitar Hero, but I would think he would enjoy that book. I'm not trying to bully you into enjoying a book you didn't - these things are usually impossible to parse - just teasing it apart a bit.

Levislade, I have a really hard time reading a lot of writing about music, especially the Rolling Stone/Spin school of music writing, or Chuck Klosterman-style writing. I adore popular music, but the Pearl Jam quote from the last book really made me nervous about his writing. Once someone starts equating music to some sort of larger thing in a strained metaphor, I clock out.

SDizzle, I just let the food fall where it may. A lot of our books here wind up spattered with sauce. It's gross, but I think eating alone, in silence, is kind of grosser.

I'm with you on the music books, but there are a TON of good ones. None from the Rolling Stone school, though. Most of the good ones are by Brits -- Hornby, Stuart Maconie, Simon Reynolds, Paul du Noyer, etc. etc. They seem to have a cultural tradition of being able to personalize the story without losing the basic concept of "here's some stuff that's true that you might be interested in", or without that crazy annoying flash POW bad New Journalism crap that everybody who wishes they were Lester Bangs does. Klosterman is actually OK, for an American, when he's writing about himself, at least. The best music writer in America writes about country, not pop: Nick Tosches; he indulges in the flash-bang style a little, but he delves into such deep weirdness that he gets away with it (not like the bogus whitebread "weirdness" of guys who think that Pearl Jam and Soundgarden are different bands).

"I always read books about S&M relationships—I’m fascinated by the S&M thing, in part because it seems so ridiculous to me, and I really want to read about what the thinking behind it is—and I always walk away unsatisfied.'

So, When you say "ridiculous", do you mean worthy of ridicule or does it just seem silly? But then why are you always reading them?

I have found that whenever I meet people who are into SM or to a lesser extent read their writing (its such an obvious trope), it doesn't take much digging to find the root cause; the raw vulnerable nerve that is always on display. These people are often lacking in certain coping skills and usually have histories of poor attachment, if not outright trauma (which are endlessly being enacted and reenacted). They rely on this framework and the clarity of splitting to relate to their fantasized, and theatrical others rather than engage with the messy uncertainty of the dyad, or triad or whatever grouping. Whether they have guilt or have adapted to accept it, there is always a sad element. SM among other things, gives these people, a safe predetermined framework to relate sexually to others of their kind; a way to tap into the electric source of their difficulties. As such it is intoxicating and like any pleasurable experience self reinforcing.
Check out "Object relations" if you want to go deeper.